[W:#113]Mass Sociopathy

[NWRatCon]

I'm wordy, but part of that is I'm still puzzling through this, so thinking "out loud", so to speak. I think the central issue common to all of these is the presence of extraordinary anxiety. In some cases, this is explicable - the threat of nuclear annihilation, for example - but in others it must be artificially maintained. That is the genius of demagogues. The spread of both the fear and justifications for action are also spread via sight, sound or oral communication - most often mass and social media.

Turning back, again, to the specific of sociopathology. Friend Visbeck argues that this is commonly the result of outside and traumatic experiences, which is true enough but too facile by half. The defining characteristic of the sociopath is "a profound lack of conscience—a flaw in the moral compass that typically steers people away from breaking common rules and toward treating others decently." So, how does one induce this behavior in others? That's the nub of the question, and the source of the danger - inspiring others to "manipulation, deceit, aggression, and a lack of empathy for others."

The first step, as AmbiguousGuy posits is to "Preach fear and hate." There is a definite segment of society that is susceptible - predisposed - to those emotions. Hillary Clinton described them as "deplorables" - the bigots, the neonazis and such. But this contagion goes well beyond that specific demographic and small cadre of ne'er-do-wells. How does it bridge the gap between the "deplorables" and the "normals"?

 

[justabubba]

I mentioned in passing, earlier, that many business schools in the 70's andr4 80's, specifically taught that a CEO's responsibility was principally (solely) to shareholders. That was a change from the "norm", prior to the influence of Milton Friedman. The criticism of that doctrine has expanded as its influence has corrupted a generation of economists, business leaders and politicians, because it excused antisocial effects.

Similarly, the legal profession has been infected by the doctrine of "originalism", which ignores the actual effect of the law on individuals and society in favor of a sclerotic interpretation based upon idiosyncratic interpretations of what "the founders thought".

This corruption, I assert, is based upon the premise that universities influence their students' behavior in their professions. If unscrupulous, or misguided, individuals gain control over thdhe education process, then, they can inculcate their charges to behave a certain way (even if that way is detrimental to society).

Another source is media. For decades the journalism profession was dedicated to tenets of ethics and factual, socially responsible reporting (largely as a reaction to the lack of it at the end of the 19th century). With the modern advent of "viewpoint journalism" and explosion of unmediated "news" sources, however, notions of ethics and neutrality have been rendered "quaint".

And, of course, there is the political sphere.

(Sorry, tablet crashed again)

this portion of your post surprised me
as an attorney, you have a good understanding of one's fiduciary obligation
yet you oppose the reality that corporate CEOs have a fiduciary obligation to the corporation's shareholders: to maximize the shareholder value of the organization they lead

 

[NWRatCon]

this portion of your post surprised me
as an attorney, you have a good understanding of one's fiduciary obligation
yet you oppose the reality that corporate CEOs have a fiduciary obligation to the corporation's shareholders: to maximize the shareholder value of the organization they lead

Yes, I understand the actual responsibility of a corporate CEO is to run a corporation responsibly, which includes value for the shareholders, but also being a good employer and responsible "corporate citizen", and, ethically, the principle responsibility has always been ensuring the continued viability of the corporation. The idea that the sole or even primary responsibility is exclusively to the shareholders is a relatively recent development (the 1970s) - thank you Milton Friedman. As I said, a fraudulent idea that has created all kinds of untoward results for society, including dishonest behavior by corporations and their officers.

As an example, hiding the known defects in products - good for the bottom line, but bad for society as well as promoting dishonesty; or deliberately polluting the environment because scrubbers or filtration systems cost money, but reduces the profit margin; or screwing over the workers by "reorganizing" through bankruptcy and offloading pension responsibilities to reduce "labor costs". How many CEOs "cooked the books" to their advantage to inflate share values, only to have share values plummeted after their departure (and after they had sold their stock options)? But, while they were CEO they "met their fiduciary duty" by keeping the share values high. That's not good corporate governance.

A fiduciary's responsibility is to do right by the client, and that isn't just to make them money. I have often had to advise a client that they shouldn't do something that they wanted to do, sometimes, but not always, because it was illegal.

 

[What if...?]

I see the circumstance I am describing, mass sociopathy, as analogous to the propagation of waves in a large body of water. Initially, disturbances in the water are disorganized, but as they overlap, they begin to become synchronized, and develop into wave patterns. Like the waves in an ocean, the water itself is not moving, but the energy is traveling through the water to create the effect. Also like waves, they can be artificially generated.

That's how I see this process. The mass of the people is like the mass of the water, and these behaviors are the energy that creates the waves or events, like Jan 6. Charles Blow described it as "Normalizing Mass Hysteria" In an article (NYT, Subscription) earlier this year, but I am looking at it more critically and specifically.

Social Psychology demonstrates that people's behavior can be affected - positively and negatively - by the actions of others, and can be manipulated toward a goal. 8 Famous Social Psychology Experiments (VeryWellMind) It has also demonstrated that social pressure can overwhelm the "right-wrong" instincts of otherwise "normal" people. Novels have been written about it (Lord of the Flies, anyone?) So, it is a real phenomenon.

What I am suggesting is that it can be expanded to a much larger portion of society.

Yup.

They no longer do the prisoner experiment. Because the “guards” end up abusing the “prisoners” every single time.

 

[What if...?]

I know you don't want to hear it, but... these are exactly the claims I'm responding to.

Again: Evidence shows that APD is a result of both genetic factors, and environmental factors such as childhood physical or sexual abuse. It's a deeply entrenched personality disorder, which typically manifests before age 15, with few viable treatments. It only affects approximately 1-4% of the US population.

Antisocial Personality Disorder - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I.e. People do not become sociopaths because they go to college, or read the New York Times, or watch Fox News.

I would repeat my request for evidence, but it's pretty clear you've got nothing. You just want a snarl word to use against your political enemies. Hard pass.

I’m convinced by observation that social media practices are making unacceptable behavior acceptable.

Algorithms and AI work for who pays for them. Same effect as grooming suicide bombers. Control their information without their knowledge. Excuse every misdeed. Transfer the blame to the innocent party.

All through suggested links. Chosen by those Agorithms and AI to keep our eyes on the screen.

I am an outlier. This site is the extent of my social media. Never had Facebook or instagram or anything else. Tried to warn people against it.

So I get to see how it affects people without being affected myself.

 

[NWRatCon]

I’m convinced by observation that social media practices are making unacceptable behavior acceptable.

Algorithms and AI work for who pays for them. Same effect as grooming suicide bombers. Control their information without their knowledge. Excuse every misdeed. Transfer the blame to the innocent party.

All through suggested links. Chosen by those Agorithms and AI to keep our eyes on the screen.

I am an outlier. This site is the extent of my social media. Never had Facebook or instagram or anything else. Tried to warn people against it.

So I get to see how it affects people without being affected myself.

I completely agree.

Indeed, as I am thinking about it, I had an insight (probably not a unique one).

People tend, on social media platforms (I'm also not a consumer for this very reason), to get into "information silos", but it is a semi-voluntary process. People often "self-select" - based upon their predilections - the sources of their information. Conservatives gravitate to conservative publications/sites, liberals to liberal ones.

As you note, the algorithms then compound this problem by eliminating information sources that do not conform to the person's viewpoint. This is less true on most mainstream media platforms in that they generally categorize their information based upon standard editing processes. But they do use algorithms as well to provide "selected for you" services. Both create self-enforcing feedback loops. They are not only self-perpetuating, but they accelerate in the original direction: The WSJ is a gateway drug to Breitbart to InfoWars. (I am not as familiar with the liberal chain, frankly. Where does Mother Jones fit in?)

It occurs to me that this self-selection process also enhances existing personality and other mental defects or predilections that the consumer already possesses (like, gullibility). Some people, for example, have "addictive personalities" - even metabolically-resonant ones (e.g., susceptibility to chemical reactions). People who have addictions often substitute different addictions once the stimulant disappears - the recovering alcoholic who becomes a problem gambler, for example.

This also explains why they tend to fall back into similar habits even after leaving the "cult" or information silo. The underlying preferences are still there, awaiting the right trigger.

 

[Antiwar]

Are you talking about the "mass sociopathy" of war?

 

[Antiwar]

@Visbek's #8 won.

 

[Questerr]

Are you talking about the "mass sociopathy" of war?

Yep people who defend themselves from foreign invasions are definitely sociopaths.

 

[justabubba]

Yes, I understand the actual responsibility of a corporate CEO is to run a corporation responsibly, which includes value for the shareholders, but also being a good employer and responsible "corporate citizen", and, ethically, the principle responsibility has always been ensuring the continued viability of the corporation.

again, we disagree.
the CEO has a fiduciary obligation to enhance the shareholder value
the employees and/or employee unions are responsible for protecting the interests of the workers, where the objectives of the employees and those of the corporation are not in sync
being a good corporate citizen is playing within the guardrails that are put in place by the state to assure compliance with those things, which if not followed, work to the detriment of society
the ethos of the corporation is whatever the shareholders/board indicates it to be so long as those actions in the name of ethics are legal
your belief that the corporation remains viable is absolutely invalid. instead, many corporations are launched with the intention to be acquired, not to be a long-sustaining entity

The idea that the sole or even primary responsibility is exclusively to the shareholders is a relatively recent development (the 1970s) - thank you Milton Friedman. As I said, a fraudulent idea that has created all kinds of untoward results for society, including dishonest behavior by corporations and their officers.

the opinion from a Nobel laureate, that the CEO has a fiduciary obligation to his shareholders, had NOTHING to do with perpetration of fraud or dishonest behavior by corporate actors
Friedman did not cause their illicit actions

As an example, hiding the known defects in products - good for the bottom line, but bad for society as well as promoting dishonesty; or deliberately polluting the environment because scrubbers or filtration systems cost money, but reduces the profit margin; or screwing over the workers by "reorganizing" through bankruptcy and offloading pension responsibilities to reduce "labor costs".

you seek to lay responsibility for the motivation of greed at Friedman's feet. that is absolute bullshit. Warren Buffett explained the criteria he followed when hiring his senior staff, including principals of the companies he [Berkshire Hathaway] owns. He seeks out those with high intellect, ambition, and ethics. Buffett then observed, the most important of those three characteristics was ethics ... because someone with the first two and without the third would be dangerous to his organization

How many CEOs "cooked the books" to their advantage to inflate share values, only to have share values plummeted after their departure (and after they had sold their stock options)? But, while they were CEO they "met their fiduciary duty" by keeping the share values high. That's not good corporate governance.

unfortunately, the state authorizes such behavior, by condoning such self-serving deceit. the entities that pay massive bonuses for such share growth are able to expense that bonus cost in the year it is incurred. to thwart such puffing of share value, the corporations should be required to delay those expenditures over multiple years to assure the share value is truly baked in and not temporarily manipulated. it would then be costly for the corporations to issue such bonuses for temporary share value spikes because they would not be able to expense the compensation unless the share values were sustained

A fiduciary's responsibility is to do right by the client, and that isn't just to make them money.

i believe you are looking at the corporate fiduciary obligation too narrowly
to make money and to enhance share value are two very different things
often, they align ... but not necessarily
if the CEO acts in a way to make a profit in the short term, while the corporation's intrinsic value ultimately declines as a result, then the CEO is not fulfilling his/her fiduciary obligation to the shareholders

I have often had to advise a client that they shouldn't do something that they wanted to do, sometimes, but not always, because it was illegal.

again, i believe your view about what constitutes a corporate fiduciary responsibility is too constrained. no one is suggesting the CEO take illegal actions even tho they might enhance profitability. placing the corporate entity at potential legal risk is contrary to the CEO's fiduciary obligation

 

[NWRatCon]

again, we disagree.

I'll allow you to be long-winded, and still wrong. I have the majority of ethicists on my side. And Warren Buffet, too.
I do have to 《snip 》, though, to keep the character count down l

your belief that the corporation remains viable is absolutely invalid.

It is the standard that has governed CEO ethics for a century, outside the Milton "blip".

that the CEO has a fiduciary obligation to his shareholders, had NOTHING to do with perpetration of fraud or dishonest behavior by corporate actors

Again, your view is in a vanishingly small minority.

Friedman did not cause their illicit actions

He set the trend in motion. Have you read nothing in the last 25 years?

you seek to lay responsibility for the motivation of greed at Friedman's feet.

I'm far from alone. Seriously, read up on any course in business ethics. Did you skip the end of the 20th Century? It was in all the papers.

Warren Buffett explained the criteria he followed when hiring his senior staff, including principals of the companies he [Berkshire Hathaway] owns. He seeks out those with high intellect, ambition, and ethics. Buffett then observed, the most important of those three characteristics was ethics ... because someone with the first two and without the third would be dangerous to his organization

Exactly my point.

unfortunately, the state authorizes such behavior, by condoning such self-serving deceit.

Now who is promoting Bullshit? The State makes people unethical?

i believe you are looking at the corporate fiduciary obligation too narrowly
to make money and to enhance share value are two very different things
often, they align ... but not necessarily
if the CEO acts in a way to make a profit in the short term, while the corporation's intrinsic value ultimately declines as a result, then the CEO is not fulfilling his/her fiduciary obligation to the shareholders

On this we agree. Now, how to prevent that?

again, i believe your view about what constitutes a corporate fiduciary responsibility is too constrained. no one is suggesting the CEO take illegal actions even tho they might enhance profitability. placing the corporate entity at potential legal risk is contrary to the CEO's fiduciary obligation

I agree with the last, but I also operate in the real world. You're welcome to join me there.

Business Ethics Certificate - Business Ethics Training
https://www.luc.edu › academics › b...
Business Ethics: Quinlan School of Business - Loyola University Chicago

 

[What if...?]

I completely agree.

Indeed, as I am thinking about it, I had an insight (probably not a unique one).

People tend, on social media platforms (I'm also not a consumer for this very reason), to get into "information silos", but it is a semi-voluntary process. People often "self-select" - based upon their predilections - the sources of their information. Conservatives gravitate to conservative publications/sites, liberals to liberal ones.

As you note, the algorithms then compound this problem by eliminating information sources that do not conform to the person's viewpoint. This is less true on most mainstream media platforms in that they generally categorize their information based upon standard editing processes. But they do use algorithms as well to provide "selected for you" services. Both create self-enforcing feedback loops. They are not only self-perpetuating, but they accelerate in the original direction: The WSJ is a gateway drug to Breitbart to InfoWars. (I am not as familiar with the liberal chain, frankly. Where does Mother Jones fit in?)

It occurs to me that this self-selection process also enhances existing personality and other mental defects or predilections that the consumer already possesses (like, gullibility). Some people, for example, have "addictive personalities" - even metabolically-resonant ones (e.g., susceptibility to chemical reactions). People who have addictions often substitute different addictions once the stimulant disappears - the recovering alcoholic who becomes a problem gambler, for example.

This also explains why they tend to fall back into similar habits even after leaving the "cult" or information silo. The underlying preferences are still there, awaiting the right trigger.

Now sis a good time to recommend a video.

Netflix.

The Social Dilemma.

It is all about this phenomenon.

I had seen it before but watched it again recently. This time I noticed things I didn’t before.

All the people they interview were instrumental to the development of the platforms and algorithms. And many went through the same technological persuasion program at Stanford.

And they all quit and started sounding the alarm when they realized what their creation was doing to people.

There’s a little artistic license but it does cover the subject matter well.

Like it included the reason why some posters we see evidently did not see things the rest of us did. They didn’t. Everybody’s feeds are made just for them. To keep them clicking and direct those clicks to what their clients want them looking at.

And nobody really knows how the algorithms come to their solutions. They set them up and let them loose and the information they glean is useful. And profitable.

It’s worth a watch by anybody interested in this topic.

 

[Lisa]

Next, I want to focus on the "Nature vs. Nurture" debate when it comes to psychological traits. Inherent in my conception is that the sociopathy I am focused on is acquired. In order for it to spread within the population, the mechanism for acquisition is from the society itself, rather than any inherent mental defect (although sometimes it may project as such).

People are not generally "born" sociopaths, although, as I mentioned earlier, some people may be mentally prone to developing such tendencies. It is, principally a "learned" behavior. But, like Autism, I think these traits exist on a continuum or spectrum, and they are displayed on such a spectrum in our society. In this instance, the sociopathy is like or related to antisocial personality disorder. "Some people seem to have no regard for others and can cause harm to them without any regret or feelings of guilt. When this behavior is pervasive, a person may have a chronic mental health condition known as antisocial personality disorder. Sometimes people with antisocial personality disorder are called 'sociopaths.'"

The gist of this conception is how such behavior patterns, that are not inherent, can spread throughout a society. How such "abnormal" psychology can become "normalized".

I mentioned that I was not the first to coin the phrase "Mass sociopathy". As it turns out, it has been used before. In researching this thread, I came across this article: This is Neoliberalism, Part II: Alienation and Mass Sociopathy by Design by Joe Brunoli. It was not the trigger for the discussion, but, conceptually, it is related, so I am linking it here as part of the discussion. What we share in presentation is the belief that the sociopathy is not only acquired, but deliberately germinated.

The starkest example of the concept is "the Big Lie" promoted by Donald Trump. But, I do not want this thread to become about that. Rather, this is an example that sprang from a seedbed of such examples, and a societal trend. Mr. Brunoli identifies one of the sources as "neoliberalism", and I agree. Let's go back to that definition of sociopathy: "a pattern of antisocial behaviors and attitudes, including manipulation, deceit, aggression, and a lack of empathy for others." When put together, we call it a pathology, but I think we all recognize it in our everyday lives, and that, my friends, is that point. Where does it come from, and why is it so ubiquitous?

Some people are just jerks, of course - they cut in line, make rude gestures or comments, and are all-around boors. But we call them jerks, boors and "assholes", because those behaviors are "out of line", not the norm, socially dysfunctional, deserving of opprobrium. So how did we get from the point that that was unacceptable to it becoming ubiquitous?

Thank you fort writing this. I'm looking forward to more essays on this subject.

 

[NWRatCon]

I appreciate the many contributions to this thread - maybe particularly the contrary ones, as they tend to focus my thoughts. In approaching this topic I was aware of the Prevalence of Psychopathy in the General Adult Population, which is relatively low - somewhere between 1.2 to 4.5% of the population, depending on the measurement standard. As I also noted, I am not a clinician, but not professionally unaware of the literature on the subject (I was a prosecutor for some time, so dealt with many individuals that exhibited these underlying traits).

What struck me, though, is that the symptoms of sociopathic personality disturbances ("A group of personality or character disorders marked primarily by failure to adapt to prevailing ethical and social standards and by lack of social responsibility." Psychology Dictionary) seem to be far more prevalent, and publicly displayed than that diagnostic prevalence would indicate. That made me curious about what might explain that dichotomy and where the cause might lie. (Aside: an interesting discussion can be found in The Natural History of Antisocial Personality Disorder, originally published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, but available through NIH.)

Friend Visbeck wanted to limit the discussion to clinical (and a somewhat inaccurate presentation of) diagnosis, but that was never the point, it was just the starting reference. As I noted from the outset, sociopathy is not a diagnostic term, but a generalized description of those that display "manipulation, deceit, aggression, and a lack of empathy for others". Those traits in particular seem to be more pronounced, and that triggered my curiosity. There are many more people who display those traits than would ever be diagnosed with a condition. And yet... there seems to be evidence that they are on the rise (and that there were particular spikes beginning with the 2016 election process). What triggered those spikes and can they be addressed?

Justabubba's discursion into corporate ethics is instructive in this regard: I think there is a correlation between a permissive mindset and the execution of anti-social behavior. I'll come back to that point in a moment.

Based upon Bureau of Justice Statistics/Uniform Crime Reporting records, Hate Crimes Reach The Highest Level In More Than A Decade (NPR) in 2020. "The spike in 2020 follows a recent upward trend in bias incidents, and it was a 6% increase over 2019." It has not abated: US Hate Crimes Rise During First Half of 2022 (VoA). "Hate crimes in major U.S. cities rose moderately during the first half of 2022 after posting double-digit percentage increases over the past two years, according to police data compiled by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism." Hate crimes, in particular, are instructive because they are based both on behavior (the crimes) and the motivation.

Hate groups and extremism are a subset of criminal enterprises that are actually tracked by the FBI (when they pose an actual threat). In fact, the FBI has "designated civil rights, specifically including hate crimes, as a national threat priority." Director Wray Addresses ADL at Never Is Now Summit (FBI) When the FBI recognizes the connection between expression of hate and actual incidents of crime, that is not an insignificant consideration.

I use hate crimes and incidents as an example, and measure, of "aggression, and a lack of empathy for others", but this is just one issue in a plethora of them that run the gamut from terrorist attacks to institutional racism (a different topic). It is hard, though, to witness events such as the Charlottesville "United the Right" rally, or the Jan 6 insurrection event and not identify anti-social elements in the activity.

But, that brings me back to the "permissive mindset" and its impact on behavior. More to follow.

 

[NWRatCon]

To be "anti"social, one must be pushing against social norms, even laws. Up until the the advent of Milton Friedman's 1970 doctrine of "everything is for the profit of the shareholders" implementation, business schools taught that the purpose of a corporation was to perpetuate the corporation (they've largely gone back to that viewpoint, and some never left it). That included consideration of customer needs, and the connection of the company to society. Friedman acknowledged that the prevailing view at the time was “social responsibilities of business in a free‐enterprise system,” "The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned “merely” with profit but also with promoting desirable “social” ends; that business has a “social conscience” and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers."

Friedman took a different tack. What Friedman's philosophy did was give permission to ignoring those considerations. Friedman himself described this position as amoral. He felt that it was others' responsibility to take care of the moral stuff. (One should read his original essay to understand how antisocial it actually was.) As his position began to be taught in business schools it spread and gave justification for all kinds of social depredations and antisocial behaviors, not all of them - but many of them - illegal, but the bulk of them immoral, and all of them amoral. In short, he preached - and that word is used advisedly, and accurately - that executives had a responsibility to do whatever the law allowed them to get away with.

That permissive structure has spread far and wide, as one commenter has noted, "Unfortunately, all too many people have followed Crook's reasoning and rejected a moral or ethical role in business thanks to their interpretations of the Friedman doctrine. The inclination has twisted the nature of capitalism and turned it into a perverse caricature of itself. Without a sense of morality or ethics governing their operations, financial markets that should work with some degree of efficiency and effectiveness become a damaged game." The Need For Moral People In Amoral Markets (Forbes) "As Crook and Friedman both conceded, it is impossible to extract markets from a "wider social and political system." Businesses have repeatedly proven that, left to their own devices, executives too frequently are unwilling to engage in open or free competition without deception or fraud."

Capital markets provide only one example - a big example, a pervasive example, mind you - of the damage a "permissive mindset" can work.

In other areas, as I discussed previously, it can do even more damage. I'll be back with more thought on that, but I have a dog that needs attention.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I'm a strong advocate for ethics. I've had careers in both law and print journalism (short lived), with strong bases in ethics. Conversely, I have visceral contempt for those who practice any profession contrary to ethical standards (like truth). I had the honor to serve with a majority of people in both government and the military who were absolutely dedicated to the interests of the public. True believers.

The impetus for this thought thread is the observation of multiple examples of completely debased behavior, in public, and without apparent shame. Yes, there is an element of this that is influenced by the advent of Trump, McConnell, McCarthy and George Santos, the Freedom Caucus, and events like the coup attempt on Jan 6.

But if that were it, I wouldn't have started this thread, here. I'm really interested in exploring the psychological aspects of what generates such behavior, and on a scale large enough to influence society.

Contrary to some speculation presented here, I think we are the cusp of the fever breaking. I'm optimistic. But if one doesn't understand the mechanism of the disease, one cannot be inoculated and is subject to reinfection. I see waves of such infections in history, so we clearly have yet to find a prophylactic.

Ist bold: This has also caught my attention. The last loser who took the phrase "padded resume" to new heights is an example of this. The 'shame' equation which drove ethics is dying. But then it occurs to me that none of these liars is likely to appear unable to do their job since office holder in the US is a cake walk. If I, for example, as a broadcaster insisted on years of experience, that lie would show up pretty fast.

Second bold: Me too! America has always been paranoid compared to Canada. Commies? So what? The United States has a collective fear. It's like tree sap, waiting to be tapped for the spring. It is not easily dismissed (this site has a lot of people totally motivated by the word "commie". That's a far that has been installed and nurtured. And I theorize that it worked so effectively in WW II against the "Nazi's and the "Japs", all of whom had to be put in concentration camps during the war. I have never understood being afraid of an idea.

Third bold: I am not so optimistic. Societies tend to rise and fall in their history and it is usually during a peak where the wheels come off, like the Roman Empire, Hitler, Attila the Hun. As long as America's wheels are still on I don't see them not turning. There isn't enough over all wrong for the wheels to come off, but the ride is getting damned uncomfortable.

I have never seen anything like this, where everyone is lying and no on disbelieves anything. The fact Donald Trump survived that escalator ride to run shows the nations mental health is very fragile.

 

[justabubba]

To be "anti"social, one must be pushing against social norms, even laws.

to abide by that simplistic argument, one would have to believe that civil disobedience was an anti-social behavior, when it is actually often a pro-social activity

Up until the the advent of Milton Friedman's 1970 doctrine of "everything is for the profit of the shareholders" implementation, business schools taught that the purpose of a corporation was to perpetuate the corporation (they've largely gone back to that viewpoint, and some never left it). That included consideration of customer needs, and the connection of the company to society. Friedman acknowledged that the prevailing view at the time was “social responsibilities of business in a free‐enterprise system,” "The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned “merely” with profit but also with promoting desirable “social” ends; that business has a “social conscience” and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers."

you insist that business with a social conscience was the norm until Friedman promoted the Libertarian alternative that asserted a business should operate in its own interests unless that activity would prevent another from asserting its right to do the same
having been raised in that golden era of the American economic era immediately preceding the early 1970s when Friedman espoused the Libertarian alternative, i have no recollection of those socially invested businesses you insist predate Friedman's assertions. would you please share a representative example of such named corporations to document that they actually existed and are not merely a fabrication of your imagination

Friedman took a different tack. What Friedman's philosophy did was give permission to ignoring those considerations. Friedman himself described this position as amoral. He felt that it was others' responsibility to take care of the moral stuff. (One should read his original essay to understand how antisocial it actually was.) As his position began to be taught in business schools it spread and gave justification for all kinds of social depredations and antisocial behaviors, not all of them - but many of them - illegal, but the bulk of them immoral, and all of them amoral. In short, he preached - and that word is used advisedly, and accurately - that executives had a responsibility to do whatever the law allowed them to get away with.

Friedman only promoted the Libertarian alternative way of conducting oneself, whether as an individual or as a business entity. the individual was entitled to lawfully do whatever was needed to be done so long as that action did not prohibit another from also being free to exercise its rights. see the above emphasis [added by me]; i further invite you to present any statement by Friedman which promoted illegal behavior, which YOU insisted he recommended. if you are unable to do so, then i ask you to withdraw that statement

 

[justabubba]

That permissive structure has spread far and wide, as one commenter has noted, "Unfortunately, all too many people have followed Crook's reasoning and rejected a moral or ethical role in business thanks to their interpretations of the Friedman doctrine. The inclination has twisted the nature of capitalism and turned it into a perverse caricature of itself. Without a sense of morality or ethics governing their operations, financial markets that should work with some degree of efficiency and effectiveness become a damaged game." The Need For Moral People In Amoral Markets (Forbes) "As Crook and Friedman both conceded, it is impossible to extract markets from a "wider social and political system." Businesses have repeatedly proven that, left to their own devices, executives too frequently are unwilling to engage in open or free competition without deception or fraud."

you inform us that executives are willing to engage in deception
that really turns on what one finds to be "too frequently"
of course there are such unethical business executives
in my experience, those deceptive executives are the exception
i read your post to indicate you believe otherwise
how our forum readers view the expression "too frequently" will likely determine whether they find your argument credible - or not

Capital markets provide only one example - a big example, a pervasive example, mind you - of the damage a "permissive mindset" can work.

In other areas, as I discussed previously, it can do even more damage. I'll be back with more thought on that, but I have a dog that needs attention.

having spent the bulk of my career in the capital market industry, i look forward to reading the comments which will follow your care for your dog

 

[NWRatCon]

to abide by that simplistic argument, one would have to believe that civil disobedience was an anti-social behavior, when it is actually often a pro-social activity

Apples and Oranges. But, indeed, civil disobedience is definitionally "anti-social", in the sense that it is contrary to the norm. But that construction is neither what I have been discussing, nor consonant with the overall concept.

you insist that business with a social conscience was the norm

IN BUSINESS SCHOOLS, and as popularly stated by corporations in the 1960s. You keep leaving that very important condition out. Moreover, that is precisely what Friedman stated and which I explicitly cited.

until Friedman promoted the Libertarian alternative that asserted a business should operate in its own interests unless that activity would prevent another from asserting its right to do the same
having been raised in that golden era of the American economic era immediately preceding the early 1970s when Friedman espoused the Libertarian alternative, i have no recollection of those socially invested businesses you insist predate Friedman's assertions.

Two things: Did you go to business school in the 1960's (and have you ever had a course in business ethics)? Do you remember every aspect of your youth? This feels more like a justification than a memory, frankly.

would you please share a representative example of such named corporations to document that they actually existed and are not merely a fabrication of your imagination

No. But I will provide a general discussion of the development of business ethics, which began as an academic study at the turn of the 20th Century. The Origins of Business Ethics in American Universities, 1902–1936. I'm not whistling Dixie here, I've followed the history. The notion of standards of ethics in business was a direct outgrowth of the excesses of the late 1800s, of the "Robber Baron" era, of the Swift meatpacking scandals, of child labor, adulterated foods and trust busting. It took a hiatus, essentially, during the Second World War, and slowly returned to academia in the 1950s. Contrary to most modern discussions, it was not "invented" in the 1960s, but had a profound resurgence in business schools about that time. That is what Friedman was responding to, and he made no bones about it.

Friedman only promoted the Libertarian alternative way of conducting oneself, whether as an individual or as a business entity. the individual was entitled to lawfully do whatever was needed to be done so long as that action did not prohibit another from also being free to exercise its rights. see the above emphasis [added by me]; i further invite you to present any statement by Friedman which promoted illegal behavior, which YOU insisted he recommended. if you are unable to do so, then i ask you to withdraw that statement[/URL]

I have nothing to withdraw. I stated nothing of the sort and I don't respond well to strawman argumentation. You didn't even read my citations, so I think you have not a leg to stand on.

Now, with that discursion out of the way, I had a good discussion with my son just today about the connection between "amorality" and "immorality" - or more accurately, the insistence that amorality is indeed "a moral imperative." This disconnect informs both laissez-faire capitalism, as Friedman advocated, and fascism, as well as other social ills, but I don't want to get too far off-topic. So I am going to end it there, and return to the actual topic of the thread.

 

[NWRatCon]

A 2018 article in Psychology Today asked the question, Are Narcissists and Sociopaths Increasing? "Personality disorders are a significant, but barely recognized, public health problem in the United States and around the world. Two personality disorders, in particular, cause a great deal of disruption in the workplace, conflict in marital relationships, and are prevalent in criminal populations. And they appear to be increasing."

The answer really begins with a 2005 NIH-funded study. "Between 2001 and 2005, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded the largest study ever done regarding the prevalence of personality disorders in the United States. Structured interviews were done with approximately 35,000 people who were randomly selected to be representative of the U.S. adult population in a variety of ways including age, income, gender and region. This study found that 6.2% of the general population would meet the criteria for NPD3 and 3.7% would meet the criteria for ASPD (5.5% male and 1.9% female)."

As the author notes, "The NIH study was undertaken in large part to address the lack of data on the prevalence of personality disorders, given that they are “associated with several adverse consequences in the general population including marital difficulties, occupational dysfunction, and criminal behaviors.”" and, "in the past decade and a half there has been little public recognition of the problems these personalities are presenting on a large scale. When compared to the prevalence of alcoholism and addiction, personality disorders are just as large a problem."

His conclusion is also instructive: "After 30 years as a conflict resolution professional in many settings, I believe that narcissists and sociopaths are an increasing public health problem. The feedback I get from professionals worldwide is that these two personalities seem to be on the rise and the cause of many marital, workplace and criminal problems."

 

[NWRatCon]

I wanted to get that article into the discussion because it provides the background to my other point: I think that the current atmosphere of "permissive antisocial behavior" is exacerbating the trend, and to some degree causing it.

There are many sources, I think, for this "structure of permissiveness". Perhaps I should be using the term "justification", as the conditions are related.

In media, particularly mass media, there has been a trend of publicizing poor behavior. We can go back to Maury Povich, Jerry Springer, and Geraldo Rivera and the whole genre of tabloid talk shows that sensationalize, and some say glorify, bad behavior. Their only saving grace was that they did tend to ridicule the behavior.

But that morphed into "real world" entertainment shows like "the Real Housewives" series, and various temptation shows like "Temptation Island", that actually promote antisocial activity as entertainment. We're invited to be voyeurs to misogyny, cattishness and infidelity. I'm not being a moralist here, but describing the development.

Add to that, social media, which barely filters antisocial viewpoints and actually emphasizes them through algorithms.

Finally we get to those outlets that actively use those platforms to consciously justify antisocial conduct and to consolidate - even coordinate - people who are predisposed to antisocial conduct. The rise of hate groups and hate crimes is a direct result.

Into that milieu came Donald Trump, who unabashedly stoked those conditions and gave an exemplar of someone who not only glorified misanthropy, but claimed it's what made him "successful" and justified it, from cheating on taxes, to women, to using government as a tool of vengeance. And he got elected President!

He and George Santos may be extreme examples of the genre, but they are far from alone. We can look at Supreme Court Justices who justify abhorrent results on "dispassionate application of the law" (despite it being a bald-faced lie); politicians that claim public interest in pursuing personal glorification or unpopular policies - even unethical behavior; and economic populists who justify greed over altruism. It's a pervasive social disease.

 

[justabubba]

Apples and Oranges. But, indeed, civil disobedience is definitionally "anti-social", in the sense that it is contrary to the norm. But that construction is neither what I have been discussing, nor consonant with the overall concept.

civil disobedience, such as what happened in 1776 was the action taken by the minority?
a foolish presentation
"To be "anti"social, one must be pushing against social norms, even laws", you tell us
it was obviously an action taken by the majority to push back against wrongs as perceived by the majority
which explains why you want to attempt to bypass this portion of your very flawed argument

IN BUSINESS SCHOOLS, and as popularly stated by corporations in the 1960s. You keep leaving that very important condition out.

now you want to limit your discussion to only that material found in a business school syllabus
i would have sworn your original post addressed the concept of sociopathy
what did i miss in reading this statement:

... My thesis, here, is that we are in an age of such conditions that I have termed "Mass Sociopathy" ...

Moreover, that is precisely what Friedman stated and which I explicitly cited.

let's DO examine YOUR post which i then quoted and emphasized, in part:

As his position began to be taught in business schools it spread and gave justification for all kinds of social depredations and antisocial behaviors, not all of them - but many of them - illegal, but the bulk of them immoral, and all of them amoral.

clearly, you stated that Friedman advocated illegal behavior
i asked you for examples of the illegality he endorsed - or alternatively - recant your statement
instead, you chose to ignore that misrepresenation your post clearly made

 

[justabubba]

Two things: Did you go to business school in the 1960's (and have you ever had a course in business ethics)? Do you remember every aspect of your youth? This feels more like a justification than a memory, frankly.

i went to sophia university in tokyo during the 60s. business ethics was not one of the offered courses
while i do not remember all events from my youth, i do recall a couple which illustrate the error of your presentation that Friedman led the charge in the 70s, endorsing business executives to exercise deceitful practices
TV quiz shows were choreographed to assure the outcome as scripted, while the viewing public tuned in beleieving they were legitimate contests. something which was addressed in 1960 legislation
another was the payola scandal, where radio stations were being paid to play recordings, which misrepresented to the public actual song preference. this action defied existing legislation and was addressed in the 50s
i point these out from my youth to illustrate examples of prominent and deceitful public practices which were present long before Friedman advocated Libertarian principles to guide business behavior

No. But I will provide a general discussion of the development of business ethics, which began as an academic study at the turn of the 20th Century. The Origins of Business Ethics in American Universities, 1902–1936. I'm not whistling Dixie here, I've followed the history. The notion of standards of ethics in business was a direct outgrowth of the excesses of the late 1800s, of the "Robber Baron" era, of the Swift meatpacking scandals, of child labor, adulterated foods and trust busting. It took a hiatus, essentially, during the Second World War, and slowly returned to academia in the 1950s. Contrary to most modern discussions, it was not "invented" in the 1960s, but had a profound resurgence in business schools about that time. That is what Friedman was responding to, and he made no bones about it.

I have nothing to withdraw. I stated nothing of the sort and I don't respond well to strawman argumentation. You didn't even read my citations, so I think you have not a leg to stand on.

Now, with that discursion out of the way, I had a good discussion with my son just today about the connection between "amorality" and "immorality" - or more accurately, the insistence that amorality is indeed "a moral imperative." This disconnect informs both laissez-faire capitalism, as Friedman advocated, and fascism, as well as other social ills, but I don't want to get too far off-topic. So I am going to end it there, and return to the actual topic of the thread.

glad this led to the discourse about amorality and how it relates to immorality
hope you will follow up with a discussion about drawing sound conclusions based on the material being examined and how one can confirm their bias by making self-serving references

 

[justabubba]

I wanted to get that article into the discussion because it provides the background to my other point: I think that the current atmosphere of "permissive antisocial behavior" is exacerbating the trend, and to some degree causing it.

There are many sources, I think, for this "structure of permissiveness". Perhaps I should be using the term "justification", as the conditions are related.

In media, particularly mass media, there has been a trend of publicizing poor behavior. We can go back to Maury Povich, Jerry Springer, and Geraldo Rivera and the whole genre of tabloid talk shows that sensationalize, and some say glorify, bad behavior. Their only saving grace was that they did tend to ridicule the behavior.

But that morphed into "real world" entertainment shows like "the Real Housewives" series, and various temptation shows like "Temptation Island", that actually promote antisocial activity as entertainment. We're invited to be voyeurs to misogyny, cattishness and infidelity. I'm not being a moralist here, but describing the development.

Add to that, social media, which barely filters antisocial viewpoints and actually emphasizes them through algorithms.

Finally we get to those outlets that actively use those platforms to consciously justify antisocial conduct and to consolidate - even coordinate - people who are predisposed to antisocial conduct. The rise of hate groups and hate crimes is a direct result.

Into that milieu came Donald Trump, who unabashedly stoked those conditions and gave an exemplar of someone who not only glorified misanthropy, but claimed it's what made him "successful" and justified it, from cheating on taxes, to women, to using government as a tool of vengeance. And he got elected President!

He and George Santos may be extreme examples of the genre, but they are far from alone. We can look at Supreme Court Justices who justify abhorrent results on "dispassionate application of the law" (despite it being a bald-faced lie); politicians that claim public interest in pursuing personal glorification or unpopular policies - even unethical behavior; and economic populists who justify greed over altruism. It's a pervasive social disease.

i read your post above, critial of the array of alternative media sources and wonder if you even were aware that book burning has been a thing for quite a while
your pontifications reminded me of that historical fact

 

[NWRatCon]

civil disobedience, such as what happened in 1776 was the action taken by the minority?
a foolish presentation
"To be "anti"social, one must be pushing against social norms, even laws", you tell us
it was obviously an action taken by the majority to push back against wrongs as perceived by the majority
which explains why you want to attempt to bypass this portion of your very flawed argument

now you want to limit your discussion to only that material found in a business school syllabus
i would have sworn your original post addressed the concept of sociopathy
what did i miss in reading this statement:


let's DO examine YOUR post which i then quoted and emphasized, in part:

clearly, you stated that Friedman advocated illegal behavior
i asked you for examples of the illegality he endorsed - or alternatively - recant your statement
instead, you chose to ignore that misrepresenation your post clearly made

You're all over the place and not even coherent at this point. Do you even have a point that is in any way relevant to the topic?